HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter #124 Anja & Scott Cullumber
Shestak, Joe
From:Anja Cullumber <anjarn16@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, July 21, 2020 12:18 PM
To:Shestak, Joe
Subject:Re: gas station at 131st and Towne- Docket No. PZ-2020-00093-96 V
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
**** This is an EXTERNAL email. Please exercise caution and Do Not open attachments or click links from
unknown senders or unexpected email. ****
7/20/2020
To: Joe Shestak
Re: proposed gas station in VOWC
Dear Joe,
I'm writing in opposition to the proposed variances requested by Brenwick on behalf of Family Express Corp. My
opposition to these variances are based on three primary issues that should be resolved before the City of Carmel
considers any request for zoning variance.
First, the applicants request for zoning code variance should be tabled for least 180 days as they have failed to consult and
attempt to reach agreement on open issues with the neighboring residents. While agreement from neighbors is not a
requirement under the Carmel code, it is good government practice that all applicants for a variance should be expected to
first surface and then work in good faith to resolve issues. To date, no meaningful attempt has been made by the
applicants to work with the breadth of diverse neighbors. In contrast, the applicants appear to hope they can push the
variance through before sufficient visibility to the problems with the proposed commercial site comes to light. Such lack
of effort by the applicants should not be rewarded with hasty and insufficiently adjudicated action by the Board of Zoning
Adjustments.
Second, the variances as requested run counter to the Carmel code for “stacking” of vehicles at gas stations. The Carmel
code was established with extensive input in a public process and should not be subverted without far more extensive
assessment and mitigation planning. The code for Stacking was developed to avoid creating hazardous traffic conditions
in the immediate vicinity of gas stations and is even more important in more dense residential areas of the city like the
proposed site. Add to the lack of thought into how to mitigate traffic impacts is the fact that no attempt has been made to
work with neighbors to address the likely traffic back-ups and potential safety hazards to the walking and biking that is
quite prevalent in the area. Lastly, there is reason to be concerned that the variance as proposed is not realistic even if
granted given the limited size of the propsed site. Even if approved, the applicant is unlikely to be able to provide
sufficient space to actually adhere to the reduced stacking proposed. At best this represents a poorly developed site
management plan. At worst, it represents bad faith by the applicants.
And Third, the variance as requested would create an acute environmental hazard to adjacent properties. While
environmental impact is not specifically the jurisdiction of the BZA, the Board has overall responsibility for the approval
of only those variances that will not negatively impact the overall health and welfare of the impacted
community. Because of the proposed variance and associated site plan, a hazard will result from the close placement of
gasoline tank venting systems (Benzine and Methane emissions) only a few dozen yards away from residential
properties. The applicants have provided no support about how they will manage the risk or safety given the placement of
these venting systems despite the operating firm (Family Express) already facing fines by the state of Indiana for
hazardous operations in other locations. On this basis, the application should be denied, or at the least, the application
1
should be deferred for further investigation of the health and safety impact of the proposed site design under the requested
variance.
One other item of concern is the apparent disconnect between a large contingent of neighbors of the Village of West Clay
and the management of the home owner association. It has come to my attention that the Executive Director has indicated
broad support for these variances. This is simply not correct. The VOWC OA has not taking the steps required in it’s by-
laws to formally represent it’s residents on this matter. Any representations made by the Executive Director or any other
representatives of the OA should be viewed as their own personal views alone. All other representations about OA
support should be dismissed as unsupported by a fact base in the record of this application due to the failure of the OA to
conduct an in person OA meeting and vote as required under the Village by-laws for any formal legal representations on
behalf of the full membership.
In sum, the Applicants failure to work in good faith with neighbors to address any concerns associated with the impacts of
the requested variance, the application should be deferred for future action no sooner than 180 days. The applicant should
further be directed to work in good faith to resolve the issues identified and return with an agreed upon mitigation plan, if
possible, as a pre-requisite to receiving any of the sought after variances.
Thank you for your time and consideration of our concerns,
Sincerely,
Anja and Scott Cullumber
2